Quite apart from the question of whether Satan exists, you don't know what Satan wants any more than he does.
A fact is something that can be objectively proven true. The existence of Satan is not factually correct.
Not proven isn't the same as not true. You could say that the existence of God also is "not factually correct". It is still possibly true, even though it can't be proven. If you think the only things that are true are "facts" then you will find you are wrong when the facts change - as they often do - especially in science. What we think we know is nothing compared to what we don't know.
I would add that if you think discussion should be confined to that which is "factually correct" that would exclude most comment and especially the speculation that occurs here.
So…letsrun doesn’t need new moderator policies, it needs new readers who appreciate and support heavy handed moderation?
I don’t know if that is realistic. I doubt it. I mean, clearly, the board can get along fine without me. But I think in the larger running community the die is cast. LRC is what it is in the minds of the small handful of people who will seek out a running website. I doubt that heavy handed, inconsistent, and inscrutable moderation will draw a “new” audience. Those people, to the extent they even exist, are probably surfing elsewhere. And I doubt that will change.
I think I was saying it needs some old readers to behave better, and that moderation is a tool defined and implemented by and for the site owners.
You say surfing elsewhere, but if you want to go to a running site and post in a public forum, where else would that be?
If the goal is to use heavy-handed, arbitrary, scorched earth moderation to get older readers to behave better, I would say it has been a failure in every respect. I don’t think anyone has “learned” from having their posts deleted or their threads suddenly disappear. In most cases, it is impossible for readers to even understand why their post was moderated. I suspect it is made many loyal posters leave or made them hardened trolls.
If the goal is to use heavy-handed, arbitrary, scorched earth moderation to get older readers to behave better, I would say it has been a failure in every respect. I don’t think anyone has “learned” from having their posts deleted or their threads suddenly disappear. In most cases, it is impossible for readers to even understand why their post was moderated. I suspect it is made many loyal posters leave or made them hardened trolls.
The goal is not to change anyone's behavior. The current moderation is simply the response to previous bad behaviors.
"track chick" assured me that everyone has read the TOS. If you click on "Moderation Information & Rules" you will see what the goal is: "Our goal is to provide an open, collegial forum where runners or fans of running can talk about running and other topics."
You may complain that it the moderation is arbitrary, and it is: "LetsRun.com may remove content at its sole discretion for any reason whatsoever".
"Sole discretion" may mean that posters might never understand why their post was moderated, even after reading the philosophy and 14 point guideline for deleting posts and threads, especially since point 14 is "Other".
If the goal is to use heavy-handed, arbitrary, scorched earth moderation to get older readers to behave better, I would say it has been a failure in every respect. I don’t think anyone has “learned” from having their posts deleted or their threads suddenly disappear. In most cases, it is impossible for readers to even understand why their post was moderated. I suspect it is made many loyal posters leave or made them hardened trolls.
The goal is not to change anyone's behavior. The current moderation is simply the response to previous bad behaviors.
"track chick" assured me that everyone has read the TOS. If you click on "Moderation Information & Rules" you will see what the goal is: "Our goal is to provide an open, collegial forum where runners or fans of running can talk about running and other topics."
You may complain that it the moderation is arbitrary, and it is: "LetsRun.com may remove content at its sole discretion for any reason whatsoever".
"Sole discretion" may mean that posters might never understand why their post was moderated, even after reading the philosophy and 14 point guideline for deleting posts and threads, especially since point 14 is "Other".
I am not surprised you favour the rules of moderation. The moderators are clearly partial to the inevitable "rekrunnering" - such an apt expression for the monomaniacal tedium that is your hallmark - that ultimately engulfs every doping thread.
I think I was saying it needs some old readers to behave better, and that moderation is a tool defined and implemented by and for the site owners.
You say surfing elsewhere, but if you want to go to a running site and post in a public forum, where else would that be?
If the goal is to use heavy-handed, arbitrary, scorched earth moderation to get older readers to behave better, I would say it has been a failure in every respect. I don’t think anyone has “learned” from having their posts deleted or their threads suddenly disappear. In most cases, it is impossible for readers to even understand why their post was moderated. I suspect it is made many loyal posters leave or made them hardened trolls.
The goal is not to change anyone's behavior. The current moderation is simply the response to previous bad behaviors.
"track chick" assured me that everyone has read the TOS. If you click on "Moderation Information & Rules" you will see what the goal is: "Our goal is to provide an open, collegial forum where runners or fans of running can talk about running and other topics."
You may complain that it the moderation is arbitrary, and it is: "LetsRun.com may remove content at its sole discretion for any reason whatsoever".
"Sole discretion" may mean that posters might never understand why their post was moderated, even after reading the philosophy and 14 point guideline for deleting posts and threads, especially since point 14 is "Other".
I am not surprised you favour the rules of moderation. The moderators are clearly partial to the inevitable "rekrunnering" - such an apt expression for the monomaniacal tedium that is your hallmark - that ultimately engulfs every doping thread.
Normallly, we don't like threads complaining about moderation but I've restored this thread as I think it's an interesting one. We've spent a lot of time trying to make moderation quicker and better, but some thing it's gone too far. I have the ability to read deleted posts and have to admit I often am laughing at some of the posts that mods have deleted as I found them to be quite clever / funny but they found them to be not worthy of the site.
So the owner of the site agrees his moderators are overzealous free speech deniers and even had to restore this thread.
10 months after this thread was started, his moderators may even be worse.
I don't know how many times I was crafting a fun response to a fun thread, only to see the error message after posting that the the thread I am responding to has been deleted.
My registered name was banned for something silly.
I am not surprised you favour the rules of moderation. The moderators are clearly partial to the inevitable "rekrunnering" - such an apt expression for the monomaniacal tedium that is your hallmark - that ultimately engulfs every doping thread.
Pot meet kettle.
I am not defending rules of moderation that delete numerous posts from other posters while leaving columns of rekrunner's posts that bury a thread.
I am not surprised you favour the rules of moderation. The moderators are clearly partial to the inevitable "rekrunnering" - such an apt expression for the monomaniacal tedium that is your hallmark - that ultimately engulfs every doping thread.
I didn't say I favored them. I am largely indifferent. But it is not the first time that my attempts to explain what is clearly written, but seemingly not well understood, are curiously interpreted as an endorsement or a defense.
But I understand the moderation guidelines clearly favor posts that are civil, on-topic, and interesting.
I am not defending rules of moderation that delete numerous posts from other posters while leaving columns of rekrunner's posts that bury a thread.
You are denying that your posting columns engulf every doping thread? Have some self-awareness.
Your short attention span is showing. My comments in response to doping deniers are usually only a couple of sentences. Rekrunner posts are verbal mountains.
I am not surprised you favour the rules of moderation. The moderators are clearly partial to the inevitable "rekrunnering" - such an apt expression for the monomaniacal tedium that is your hallmark - that ultimately engulfs every doping thread.
I didn't say I favored them. I am largely indifferent. But it is not the first time that my attempts to explain what is clearly written, but seemingly not well understood, are curiously interpreted as an endorsement or a defense.
But I understand the moderation guidelines clearly favor posts that are civil, on-topic, and interesting.
Your last sentence is hilarious. You are never "on-topic" or "interesting" and you confuse pomposity and condescension with civility.
Normallly, we don't like threads complaining about moderation but I've restored this thread as I think it's an interesting one. We've spent a lot of time trying to make moderation quicker and better, but some thing it's gone too far. I have the ability to read deleted posts and have to admit I often am laughing at some of the posts that mods have deleted as I found them to be quite clever / funny but they found them to be not worthy of the site.
So the owner of the site agrees his moderators are overzealous free speech deniers and even had to restore this thread.
10 months after this thread was started, his moderators may even be worse.
I don't know how many times I was crafting a fun response to a fun thread, only to see the error message after posting that the the thread I am responding to has been deleted.
My registered name was banned for something silly.
I agree it is odd nothing has changed, and the problem may be getting worse. It is entirely possible that the brothers simply don’t care provided the site makes money. It is also possible, though I don’t know how, that they lack the ability to control their moderators. How exactly that could happen is a mystery to me, but I’m willing to entertain it.
[A thread of mine] This thread was deleted by a moderator. I've re-installed it. Mods, how about a new rule? Do not delete any threads that I start. Thank you.
and someone else posted: "How is it that the mods can delete your threads when you have administrator permissions and ownership of the site? Do you see the crap that us normal posters have to deal with from the mods?" Sums it up perfectly.
I didn't say I favored them. I am largely indifferent. But it is not the first time that my attempts to explain what is clearly written, but seemingly not well understood, are curiously interpreted as an endorsement or a defense.
But I understand the moderation guidelines clearly favor posts that are civil, on-topic, and interesting.
Your last sentence is hilarious. You are never "on-topic" or "interesting" and you confuse pomposity and condescension with civility.
Your post is both non-factual and off-topic -- at least two reasons it should be "moderated".
When a arbitrary decision is made to delete a post by a mod the collapse of the wave function experiences an anomalous refraction of the fabric of space-time congruence.
When a arbitrary decision is made to delete a post by a mod the collapse of the wave function experiences an anomalous refraction of the fabric of space-time congruence.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.